Re: Meeting tomorrow, Go/No Go decision

Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and, hopefully, to seeing the 
four submissions made thus far.

In the meantime, I rendered PolitiFact's methodology in StratML format 
and included it in my listing at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#CWCG


I am especially interested in their Goal 5: Campaign Promises 
<https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/PLTFCTwStyle.xml#_593db2da-e698-11ec-854b-d21c2b83ea00> 
- Track campaign promises.  It is closely related to and would be 
well-supported by these StratML use cases:

    Goal 9:Candidates for Elective Office
    <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/UC4SwStyle.xml#_0fc1db9c-08a5-11e6-b06f-a2fa45c7ae33>
    - Publish the issue statements of candidates for elective office as
    performance plans on the Web in open, standard, machine-readable format.

    Goal 10: Elected Representatives
    <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/UC4SwStyle.xml#_654e441c-0969-11e6-97e7-059645c7ae33>
    - Upon election, flesh out the candidates' plans to document more
    explicit stakeholder roles and performance indicators for their
    performance in office.

The International Fact-Checking Network's about statement has been 
available in StratML format since May 2018 but may be due for an update 
at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#IFCN


 From my perspective, a primary point is that none of this can be 
accomplished efficiently and effectively unless and until the underlying 
information is published in open, standard, machine-readable format. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_document


It will be interesting to see if the CWCG's draft form might lead to the 
establishment of such a standard.  In the meantime, StratML (ISO 
17469-1) has already been established as a duly adopted international 
/de jure/ standard.  U.S. federal agencies have been directed by law 
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-machine-readable-government-owen-ambur/> 
to use something like it and legislation recently introduced 
<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/owenambur_congressgov-library-of-congress-activity-6930927767131758592-38yC/?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web> 
by Senators Peters and Braun would require them to update their 
performance reports on a quarterly basis.

BTW, I've just about finished reading Nadine Strossen's book, /Hate: Why 
We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. /

Owen
https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/



On 6/7/2022 10:44 AM, Scott Yates wrote:
> Dear members of the CredWeb group,
>
> We will be meeting tomorrow, a bit more than 24 hours after I hit send 
> on this email, at our usual time, 11 a.m. in the East, 8 a.m. in the 
> West and 9:30 p.m. for any lurkers hanging out in Yangoon.
>
> The agenda is here 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11MOeS2I5P4dIg3An3jreEFodWWMQFQqnIwuF0UxdbiU/edit?usp=sharing>.
>
> I've added an agenda item, which is this: Is this a good idea? Or in 
> NASA parlance, are we Go For Launch?
>
> I hesitate to launch because the willingness of people to fill out the 
> form is, well, soft, and that's just from people in this group. We've 
> only had four entries so far. Maybe it's just a little too much 
> homework to ask people to do? But if the people in this group won't do 
> it, why would anyone else?
>
> If you've been waiting for just the right moment to try it for 
> yourself, well, that moment is here. Try the form out here: 
> https://forms.gle/EMGz3iWwBXxVPQ5c8
>
> If you don't know what initiative you'd like to evaluate, we've got a 
> list of suggestions here 
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qm38PfcEFreF6A265c1gS4C8gA_fGxcrhpJPHfFAvK0/edit?usp=sharing>. 
>
>
> As you are filling out the form, I would suggest that you not think of 
> other things that should be added, but instead think about what should 
> be removed. I fear it's gotten a bit bloated.
>
> I look forward to a friendly discussion about this tomorrow!
>
> -Scott